Heavyweights - all things being equal.

Following on from my pretty rubbish thread about who might come out on top should the Klitschkos disappear overnight, something caught my attention. Someone brought up the size difference regarding the Wlad/Haye fight.

Now, as we all know, the heavyweight division is something of a different beast to all the other divisions. One boxer or another can give away the kind of weight ‘advantage’ that, even comparatively, would constitute one or several categories in other, more refined and controlled, areas of our sport.

Example: Haye (210lbs) vs Klitschko (242lbs). That’s a 34lb difference or, in percentage terms, the equivalent of a super featherweight fighting a welterweight.

Now, some of this I feel may be because when you get to a certain size, any appropriately delivered punch will end it; such has been the long-established heavyweight mantra and associated excitement surrounding boxing’s flagship division. So, a 210lb professional fighter could just as easily deliver the kind of power to render a 250lb fighter unconscious as the other way around. Sure, perhaps, all attributes being equal, the 250lb fighter could render the other one more unconscious, but that’s irrelevant and overkill.

So, I guess my question boils down to skill, really. Who, out of all the current heavyweights, if they were all the same size, would you rate as the best? How much of Wlad’s win against Haye and other opponents, and his (and his brother’s) dominance in general, is down to size?

I’ll open it up to the floor, but my own person opinion is that it does matter. And quite a lot. Seriously, did Valuev seriously possess the skills to have been anything more than a journeyman should he have been born 8 inches shorter?

It makes a huge difference and for me Haye is a favourite over Wlad without the size difference. Wlad is so effective at using that natural size advantage of his but without out it he wouldn't be nearly as dominant and I think Haye finds it easier getting inside the jab landing and getting out of range. I find it hard to rate the Klitschkos on a P4P basis as they fight no one their own size, some guys pork up to a similar weight but that's just ineffective. I think if Chambers, Adamek and Povetkin were 6ft6 and athletic like Wlad they would be doing just as well as him.

Qoxiivi wrote:Following on from my pretty rubbish thread about who might come out on top should the Klitschkos disappear overnight, something caught my attention. Someone brought up the size difference regarding the Wlad/Haye fight.

Now, as we all know, the heavyweight division is something of a different beast to all the other divisions. One boxer or another can give away the kind of weight ‘advantage’ that, even comparatively, would constitute one or several categories in other, more refined and controlled, areas of our sport.

Example: Haye (210lbs) vs Klitschko (242lbs). That’s a 34lb difference or, in percentage terms, the equivalent of a super featherweight fighting a welterweight.

Now, some of this I feel may be because when you get to a certain size, any appropriately delivered punch will end it; such has been the long-established heavyweight mantra and associated excitement surrounding boxing’s flagship division. So, a 210lb professional fighter could just as easily deliver the kind of power to render a 250lb fighter unconscious as the other way around. Sure, perhaps, all attributes being equal, the 250lb fighter could render the other one more unconscious, but that’s irrelevant and overkill.

So, I guess my question boils down to skill, really. Who, out of all the current heavyweights, if they were all the same size, would you rate as the best? How much of Wlad’s win against Haye and other opponents, and his (and his brother’s) dominance in general, is down to size?

I’ll open it up to the floor, but my own person opinion is that it does matter. And quite a lot. Seriously, did Valuev seriously possess the skills to have been anything more than a journeyman should he have been born 8 inches shorter?

You actually worked it out and spared us the math.

Haye is 87% of Wlad weight.

87% of a welterweight is super feather weight.

All things being equal then Holyfield, Haye, Tyson, Marciano even Byrd.

Basically all the little guys who didn't rely on size advantages to win would be best.

Actually the more i think about it.....if all things were equal, every fight would end in a draw.

Im not really a huge fan of these kind of hypotheticals because its just impossible to tell and tends to punish the big guys for being big. The flip side would be if Haye was the same size as Wlad would he be as quick, agile and be able to utilise size and reach as effectively? Again, impossible to say because he has adapted to fight with his natural physical attributes.

bellchees wrote:It makes a huge difference and for me Haye is a favourite over Wlad without the size difference. I think if Chambers, Adamek and Povetkin were 6ft6 and athletic like Wlad they would be doing just as well as him.

Can't agree with that personally, bellchees. Wladimir's actual fights against Haye and Chambers (as well as Vitali's against Adamek, I suppose) were all just too one-sided for me to think that it was only size which separated the combatants. If they'd given Wladimir a stern examination or caused him serious problems, then perhaps. But the Klitschkos were pretty dominant in those fights, too dominant for me to think that the bouts would suddenly become competitive / pick 'ems if you took three inches in height and 30 lb of weight off them, or if you scaled Haye, Chambers or Adamek up accordingly.

I guess my gripe is that being 6'6" and 245 lb doesn't guarantee being quick, physically stong in the ring, having quick hands or being able to jab extremely well, all of which are strengths of Wladimir's.

My take on it has always been pretty consistent; size does matter, but not quite as much as ability. Wlad's a bigger fighter than Haye, but I do genuinely think he's a better one as well, and as Manos alludes to this process can be a wee bit unfair, as the so-called 'Super-Heavyweights' basically end up suffering for being big.

Ali, Joe Louis, Tyson, Holmes etc were all smaller than the Klitschkos, yet most would back them to win against them. In a nutshell, that is more or less my point; if someone comes along who is good enough to beat them, then they will, even if they're smaller. Right now, there just isn't anyone as good as either Wladimir or Vitali, regardless of making size equal, at least in my eyes.

Keep referring back to this but the mental aspect always gets left out in these debates.....

Confidence is key to everything in life.........Not sure just how much Haye's defeat to Wlad was down to not the size element but confidence.....

When I started bodybuilding I was 12 stone...always thought that when I hit 15 stone I'd be King of the hill and not intimidated by certain things in my life..

When I reached 15 stone I was still the same guy...with the same demons..

For me Wlad thinks he's better than Haye...and the fact Haye wants Vitali...tells me Haye thinks he is too...

Wlad.....................all things being equal..

88Chris05 wrote:

bellchees wrote:It makes a huge difference and for me Haye is a favourite over Wlad without the size difference. I think if Chambers, Adamek and Povetkin were 6ft6 and athletic like Wlad they would be doing just as well as him.

Can't agree with that personally, bellchees. Wladimir's actual fights against Haye and Chambers (as well as Vitali's against Adamek, I suppose) were all just too one-sided for me to think that it was only size which separated the combatants. If they'd given Wladimir a stern examination or caused him serious problems, then perhaps. But the Klitschkos were pretty dominant in those fights, too dominant for me to think that the bouts would suddenly become competitive / pick 'ems if you took three inches in height and 30 lb of weight off them, or if you scaled Haye, Chambers or Adamek up accordingly.

I guess my gripe is that being 6'6" and 245 lb doesn't guarantee being quick, physically stong in the ring, having quick hands or being able to jab extremely well, all of which are strengths of Wladimir's.

My take on it has always been pretty consistent; size does matter, but not quite as much as ability. Wlad's a bigger fighter than Haye, but I do genuinely think he's a better one as well, and as Manos alludes to this process can be a wee bit unfair, as the so-called 'Super-Heavyweights' basically end up suffering for being big.

Ali, Joe Louis, Tyson, Holmes etc were all smaller than the Klitschkos, yet most would back them to win against them. In a nutshell, that is more or less my point; if someone comes along who is good enough to beat them, then they will, even if they're smaller. Right now, there just isn't anyone as good as either Wladimir or Vitali, regardless of making size equal, at least in my eyes.

Theres also the fact that if Wlads athleticism is at the same level it is now - he'd be even faster, move better and probably cause more knockouts because the opponent wont see em coming. being massive isnt always in favour of the Heavy.

i find it hard to look past haye's speed and KO power for such a small heavyweight.
if they were the same size it doesn't mean they'd be as fast as each other. he was fast for a cruiser.


Wlad's advantage is he fights big and his power comes from his mass. I think its nonsense to think he'd punch as hard if he was 30lbs lighter.

Why not though? Wlad hits harder than most heavies but since you can see them coming, the damage is less. It might be thatll he'll hit less hard but get more knockouts because the opponent can't see em coming. As for speed and power - what real evidence is there at Heavyweight?

You see you're forgetting that a lot of sport is in the mind.....

I'm sure there are better tennis players out there than Murray..Dzoko etc..

But do they believe....

Haye didn't fancy Wlad.....end of.

OasisBFC wrote:Wlad's advantage is he fights big and his power comes from his mass. I think its nonsense to think he'd punch as hard if he was 30lbs lighter.

Fair enough if you think that Wlad's size is the main reason for his punching power, but I don't see how it can be nonsense to think that he could (not would, necessarily) hit as hard if he was a couple of stone or so lighter.

Shavers' peak weight was around 210 lb. Foreman 220. Ditto Tyson. Conversely, Valuev was around 325 lb for many of his fights but clearly couldn't punch his weight. Carnera was upwards of 260 lb much of the time, but will never trouble any big hitters list.

Great / big punchers have always come in all different shapes and sizes. Take 30 lb off of Wladimir and he's still one of the biggest punchers out there today, I believe. You could argue that his power would be less, and you may be right, but I tend to think that if it were, it wouldn't be by much at all.

Got to agree with Chris, nobody really knows what causes power punching to any degree of certainty so to say Wlad’s is all a consequence of his size doesn’t cut it for me. Look at a guy like Langford, 5ft 7 and never above 190lbs but many a genuine heavyweight confirms being hit like him was like nothing they had ever experienced before or since. Would he have hit harder for carrying another 30lbs, personally am not convinced.

TheMackemMawler wrote:Actually the more i think about it.....if all things were equal, every fight would end in a draw.

That is a good point mackem. The title isn't really representative of the article.

"Look at a guy like Langford....."

Name dropper you...